Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.
First off today, Dave McNary at Variety reports that Seth MacFarlane’s Fuzzy Door Productions, Universal Pictures and Media Rights Capital have all been sued for copyright infringement over the comedy movie “Ted”, which came out in 2012 and is due for a sequel later this year.
The lawsuit was filed by Bengal Mangle Productions, which claims that “Ted” is significantly similar to a pair of Web series they created entitled ‘Charlie The Abusive Teddy” and “Acting School Academy”, both of which creature a teddy bear named Charlie that, according to the lawsuit, is similar to “Ted’s” titular character.
The lawsuit also points out specific scenes it feels overlap and notes that the characters look and act very similarly while existing in a similar environment. None of the defendants had any comment on the lawsuit.
Next up today, Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter Esquire reports that a Texas judge has ordered Jaime De La Rosa to pay some $375,000 in damages the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), over his continued sale of fake Oscar statues on Ebay.
AMPAS originally contacted De La Rosa and demanded that he turn over all of the replicas in his possession. He originally complied but when AMPAS learned that he was continuing to sell the statues, they pressed forward with their copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit. De La Rosa admitted to the sales and didn’t offer up a significant defense, causing AMPAS to file for a motion of judgment.
AMPAS was granted that motion but only request $75,000 for the copyright infringement and $300,000 for the trademark infringement, despite being eligible for much more. AMPAS cited De La Rosa’s limited ability to pay as a reason for taking smaller amounts. The judge agreed and also enjoined De La Rosa from making or selling Oscar statuettes and ordered him to deliver all of his existing ones and then submit a report under oath about his compliance.
Finally today, Andy at Torrentfreak writes that ReelRadio, a site focused on archived radio broadcasts, has had to remove many of its archived broadcasts due to pressure from the record labels.
ReelRadio’s collection is divided into scoped and unscoped broadcasts. Scoped broadcasts have the announcer’s voice and other elements, but the music removed. Unscoped leave the music intact. Though ReelRadio had sought and obtained a license for the unscoped archives, the RIAA has determined that it doesn’t meet the standards for archived programs, which requires that the program be at least 5 hours in length and stay online for no longer than two weeks.
ReelRadio has responded by removing all of the unscoped broadcasts, leaving on the scoped ones online. In the meantime, the RIAA has given ReelRadio until August 8th to respond to their concerns and challenges.
That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.
Want the Full Story?
Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.